Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 19 February 2018 (→Blocked again for topic ban violation: Note on email). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello Jojhnjoy and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page BMW, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Misplaced Pages's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Misplaced Pages.

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ludger (name)

Genau - Magna gratia! --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I would consider it weird that Ludger actually links to the person I was taught to have the name Liudger, while the article Ludger does not tell the reader that Ludger is a regular name that is very popular in the region I grew up, since other names such as Thomas or Hans have their own article, why would Ludger not have his article as well? Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you are from Friesland or NRW - great.--Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You could take a look at my recent edits in the English (or German) Misplaced Pages, I guess you will have a good chance finding that out ;-) --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to say, near my friend from Nordwalde :) You can find someting about me in the German Wikipeia (look at my account) --Ἀστερίσκος (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dynemetre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Riley RM

Hello,
Did you ,mean to remove the Scale Models section along with all the FB/spam type content? It's not really a problem if you did, but a number of car articles do have that section (particularly older cars)... Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I thought they were a part of the IP-spam, so I removed that section as well. I don't think that mentioning scale models is unnecessary information in gernal, however, a lot of scale models of proabably every vehicle were made, so if we mention one of them, we need to display why we do this, what makes the scale model special, etc. Just mentioning the existance of a certain scale model with no further information is nothing that really helps in my opinion. For example, I also have a scale model of the Claas Matador Gigant, but I did not mention this either since I think that it does not add any useful information to the article (which needs further expansion rather in the technical section.) I have even seen Porsche-Diesel-Standard-Bobby-cars. So unless the scale models have a significant impact on the car itself, not mentioning them is the best option. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Unimog 401) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Unimog 401, Jojhnjoy!

Misplaced Pages editor Jupitus Smart just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good work with the translations

To reply, leave a comment on Jupitus Smart's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Jupitus Smart 10:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: Thank you for reviewing the page. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

You have also announced that you intend to violate basic MOS conventions on several articles, and carry on a pointless debate. This is disruptive. Please stop. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Off my talk page

You are welcome to post short civil notes on my talk page that are specifically relevant to me. Do not post any more 2,000 word novellas, and do not fork discussions away from other participants. The Automobile Project community is considering this issue. It's not only about me. Forking the discussion excludes editors who have a right to follow the entire discussion. Posting unwelcome comments on others talk pages can get you blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, thats why I wrote "feel free to delete this again". Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, no more novels on my talk page please Jojhnjoy, especially when the topic is already being discussed elsewhere. And the accusation of trolling/vandalism was not very nice. 1292simon (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jojhnjoy and IDHT. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Jojhnjoy, I've added the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} to the end of the AN/I thread because it has gone far off topic, and the Admins and regular participants at AN/I do not take kindly to such long discussions. Please reply to me above {{Collapse bottom}}. Rest assured, everybody knows what "extended content" means, and they will click if they choose to read the long discussion that follows. Everyone will be grateful for this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Topic banned

In accordance to the outcome of this discussion: Jojhnjoy and IDHT at ANI, the Misplaced Pages community have unambiguously agreed to topic ban you or WP:TBAN from all articles relating to "units" and "measurements". This includes the article talk pages as well. For more details, please read my "nac" closure at the discussion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: Hey, thank you for finally closing it. Just one question: Will it be okay to behave like this? "(...)Whenever I find mistakes, I will mention that on the corresponding talk page and cite reliable sources. When I create a new article and have to add units, I will just cite the source word for word and perform no conversion at all." --Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not able to view the edit because it has been suppressed by an Admin. with oversight rights — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't some minutes ago. However, I announced that I would refrain from interacting with unit names and conversions in general and would refrain from changing, modiyfing, adding etc. units in existing articles: "I shall refrain from editing unit names and conversions. Further, I shall not add, modify, change or correct any units in existing articles. Whenever I find mistakes, I will mention that on the corresponding talk page and cite reliable sources. When I create a new article and have to add units, I will just cite the source word for word and perform no conversion at all." Do you think that is okay? Especially because I work on vehicle topics and adding units when I create a new article is mandatory there. With "mentioning on the talk page" I mean that I would mention content mistakes, for instance "it says 100 kW but the source says 120 kW" not "it says 100 PS it must say 73.5 kW instead". --Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No, don't do any of that. Another editor can build a case against you to get you blocked indefinitely. Even if there is vandalism, don't even revert it. My best advice to you is this, find a new subject to work with that doesn't violate your Tban. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait: ″Jojhnjoy is banned from editing all articles related to "units" and "measurements". This will also include the articles talk page. Some articles might not be wholly about units and measurements, but if there is some sort of connection depending on the edit, it will be considered a violation of the Tban.″

This means I must not edit pages such as Kilopondmetre or Newton metre. But what does the last part of your sentence mean? What is "some sort of connection depending on the edit"? Which connection do you mean? And depending on what of the edit? I consider it vague and unclear. Are you addressing my words? "I shall refrain from editing unit names and conversions. Further, I shall not add, modify, change or correct any units in existing articles. Whenever I find mistakes, I will mention that on the corresponding talk page and cite reliable sources. When I create a new article and have to add units, I will just cite the source word for word and perform no conversion at all." --Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to your question earlier here . — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII:? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you want to express with: ″Some articles might not be wholly about units and measurements, but if there is some sort of connection depending on the edit, it will be considered a violation of the Tban.″? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll clarify this again so none of us gets confused. You are not allowed to edit articles and their talk pages relating to "units" and "measurements" such as Kilopondmetre or Newton metre or even the article Ruler as they are accociated with units and measurements. To clarify, "Some articles might not be wholly about units or measurements, but if there is some sort of connection depending on the edit, it will be considered a violation of the Tban.″ meaning Gasoline may be primarily accociated with vehicles but the article still uses some type of unit or measurement like gallons, liters, or celsius. It's ok to edit the article so as long as you avoid changing a type of unit or measurement such as volume which applies to more of measurement. I hope this helps you better understand what I'm trying to say. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII:

Okay, that is fine. I accept and respect that "changing" aspect. But what about possible mistakes? Mentioning them on the talk page is not permitted? And what about adding non-existent measurements. I don't mean just adding new units in addition to already existent units for the same thing but adding completely new sentences. Currently, I am working on a huge article expansion and it needs some units, for instance, when there is a sentence such as this one: "Engines with 80–125 PS (59–92 kW) were offered for this model." This will be a new sentence that is non existent at this current point. Should I write "More powerful engines were offered for this model" or just cite the source (as I said before?): "Engines with 80–125 PS were offered for this model." What am I supposed to do in any case like that? Does that mean I cannot add any such sentences? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Dont add measurements or even inform another editor for possible error. You're also going to drop your attempt to expand an article if it has anything to do with violating your ban. I will later inform an admin of your Tban, but I must go, sorry. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thats why I want to ensure that I would not violate a ban with adding content. You tell me something about a topic ban but don't explain it. Again: How would I add a sentence like this one: "Engines with 80–125 PS (59–92 kW) were offered for this model."? It is necessary content. Also, am I right that I am not allowed to even mention obvious mistakes? Do you want to exclude me from contributing? Sorry, but you cannot leave it like that, you must be clear and precise. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement

Based on the result of this community discussion about the patterns of your editing in these topics relating to automobile and units of measurement, you have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind. You may appeal this decision, but it should be filed after no less than one year six months of this closure. Any violations of this topic ban will lead to immediate sanction.

This editing restriction has been logged here. Alex Shih 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

YGM

WCM_email 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Only warning

I am sorry to issue this warning. But this edit has been pointed out by another editor to be an obvious violation of your topic ban. I am obliged to tell you that the next violation will result in immediate block. Alex Shih 15:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not allowed to correct my own mistakes, so you are basically implying that prohibiting obvious mistake correction would improve Misplaced Pages. I totally agree on that. But let me show you something:

• Accusing someone of edit-warring (even though it is a blatant lie) to get them banned? Allowed.
• Supporting grievous bodily harm? Allowed.
• Implying that I lack any kind of respect? Also allowed.
• Correcting typos? Not allowed.

--Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jojhnjoy: I've sent you an explanation through e-mail. Alex Shih 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retired?

Could you please remove the Template:Retired from your user page, per the template doc? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here is the link: Jojhnjoy_violating_topic_ban Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for topic ban evasion

I have blocked you for 24 hours for contravening your topic ban on automotive subjects] when you edited Flathead engine. This is a 24-hour block. Please adhere to the community sanction upon your return. A Train 12:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Train: Well, interesting. Automobile means that something can move on its own power. This does not include the primitive valvetrain of engines unsuitable for automobiles. What is better? Blocking those who criticise original research or those who add original research on purpose? Think about it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You should probably tell the designers of the Cadillac V-16 that their engine choice was unsuitable for an automobile. I sincerely and earnestly suggest that you stop trying to pedantically wiki-lawyer your way around the topic ban, or you will be indefinitely blocked in short order. A Train 12:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

How broad is that topic ban? Does disruptive trolling on automobile topics (I think "the primitive valvetrain of engines unsuitable for automobiles" clearly applies) also cover his user talk: page whilst otherwise blocked?

This behaviour is exactly what the topic ban was put in place to avoid. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think a one-off comment to contest a block by claiming the specific article is not subject to the ban, but now that the claim has been clearly refuted then any further discussion should be curtailed - so I have revoked talk page access for the duration of this (very lenient) block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• This wasn't impressive either. Do you have any intention of observing that topic ban? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The ban was placed in July, and I see Jojhnjoy has been editing talk pages in defiance of it ever since - for some examples see here, here, here, and more.

@Jojhnjoy: If I see one more edit in defiance of your ban, on any page (including talk pages), I will block you for the entire duration of the six-month period you must wait before appealing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked again for topic ban violation

• The earliest appeal date for your ban has been reset to six months from today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I am topic banned from units and automobiles. Neither is a flathead engine an automobile nor is a user's talk page. (An no, a flathead engine is not "seriously" related to automobiles, even if the article on flathead engines claims that (that section is unsourced); I can also explain why if you're interested.) Telling another user to stop adding unsourced, badly sourced and fake-sourced content to Misplaced Pages does not violate a topic ban. Is it my fault that they "work" on BMW (=automobile) articles mostly? No. Therefore, you cannot block me for telling another user to stop adding original research to Misplaced Pages. Instead, I recommend that you read WP:V and WP:NOR and block those who add original research on purpose. And you should consider the amount of damage I dealt to articles: 0. I did not add unsourced/badly sourced/fake-sourced content. Also, I did remove several unsourced sections from articles which is clearly beneficial. I mostly used the talk page whenever I deleted something. Just check my contributions and look for things I have done bad or wrong; I think you will find some (for instance, I accidently used commata instead of dots for decimal numbers) but how many of them were done on purpose? And what would the damage be like you would have to protect Misplaced Pages from by blocking me? For criticism on talk pages? Of course nobody likes that, but at some point we need a level of quality and it starts with good sources. And honestly, I don't care if somebody believes or claims or tells something, as long as they cannot cite sources, it has to be considered wrong. And I cannot help it if some authors don't care about sources. I have been banned for several things, including preferring cm³ over cc — I can even cite a source that clearly says that cc must not be used. Nobody cares, what am I supposed to do? If I had a sufficient amount of good sock puppets, I could add any kind of POV I wanted to an article of my choice and immediately topic ban everyone who criticises or disagrees with my POV. Or just a small amout of users has to agree with me. Same result. Do you see the problem? I had to endure several insults including an accusation of lacking respect for anybody else, support for flogging me in public and subhuman conversational quality. Some users have clearly shown their disgusting side, in other language versions of Misplaced Pages they would have been blocked indefinitely for – let me politely call it – ignoring WP:NPA. I know the (German language) Misplaced Pages rules quite well and I have worked on several projects, especially in the German language Misplaced Pages, I am known for high quality automobile articles there, I created several featured and good articles, also, I am known for my "non-article work": I am a mentor for new users and recently helped a new author with creating an article for "Did you know?". So, as I mentioned earlier, please explain how you think I would damage Misplaced Pages and why you would have to block me. And don't tell me that I create unnecessary work for other authors. I mean, even if I added a volume like this: 1234 cm³ – especially if this was in a scientific article or in an article on a non-American topic – it wouldn't be wrong as long as I can cite sources. If others dislike that and think they have to change it, okay! I don't care if they change it or not. But that does not mean unnecessary work since there is no need for any changes. As long as everything I do can be cited with good sources, I don't see any problem. And if somebody disagrees, they have to prove the source wrong, not me. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your ban applies to all pages, including user talk pages. And you know how to post an unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It does, but you still need to explain what exactly led to the block. You haven't explained that yet. What if the block reason is invalid? As I explained, if another editor adds bad (bad=source problem, as explained initially) automobile content to Misplaced Pages, it is not my fault. I would also tell them to stop if they added bad music (or whatever) content. What am I supposed to do? Telling another user to stop a certain bad behaviour without explaining it properly wouldn't make them stop. Therefore, it is mandatory that I add difflinks. Otherwise, it would be an unfounded claim. Even if those difflinks link to automobile pages. What is the block reason? Arbitrariness? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Talking to walls is an ineffective practice, so I will not try to engage in it. Make an unblock request or don't - it makes no difference to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If you would start thinking about the situation for two minutes, you would quickly realise that there is no difference between a block and a topic ban in this case. I work on automobile articles only. Topic banning me from automobile articles indefinitely equals blocking me indefinitely. You blocked me for six months. Wow. Does that change anything? No, it does not. You could also block me indefinitely, you would do User:Dennis Bratland a favour since that's what he wants so badly. And don't forget to allow User:Andy Dingley to flog me. Isn't it a shame that users express such wishes here? How low can the level of respect even be? As I said, I created some featured articles, but honestly, why would I want to translate them and add them to the English language version of Misplaced Pages if this project is so disgusting? The overwhelming amount of subhuman treatment I experienced here is deterrent. Where is the damage I dealt? Where is the bad content? There is none. Why would you even ban me? Or block me? The reason is very simple, some users just dislike what I do due to their personal preferences. I don't care about personal preferences, I care about sources only. If some authors dislike sources, I cannot help them. If they decide to ban me, I am doomed. There is neither a reason for banning nor for blocking me. I haven't dealt any damage to this project. It is simply arbitrariness, someone has to be the scapegoat. Since I use the SI system and German sources, I am the scapegoat. As simple as that. There is no rational reason for banning or blocking me. Not at all. It is a shame what happened here but I cannot do anything about it. Maybe I should start asking myself how much time I wasted here. Schleichts eich olle beieinond. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, don't drag me into this. This is all your doing. It's between you and the admins you won't listen to. I'd bet that 10 out of 10 de.wikipedia.org admins would agree that you earned your own block by your own willful violation of the community ban. If you really think the topic ban is unjustified, why don't you appeal it? File your appeal, win, problem solved. Do it. I'd bet 10 out of 10 de.wikipedia admins would deny that appeal just as the en.wikipedia ones will. I'd love to find out. There are admins like Agathoclea who might be able to make that happen. Let's be honest though: if the de.wikipedia admins don't side with you, you'll deny their legitimacy too. There isn't anybody anywhere who can get through to you. OK, off to talk to some other wall now. Maybe I'll make rude gestures at the moon or yell at a cloud while I'm at it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: He's not actually allowed to appeal the topic ban for at least six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Re: "If you would start thinking about the situation for two minutes, you would quickly realise that there is no difference between a block and a topic ban in this case". That's not my problem, it is entirely of your own making. I did not impose the topic ban, the community did, and I have no power to modify it - only to enforce it.

  Re: "You blocked me for six months. Wow. Does that change anything? No, it does not." Yes it does. It prevents you from breaking your topic ban, as you keep doing.

  Now, you are not allowed to appeal the topic ban for at least six months, but that is exactly what you are doing here - and you must stop that too. All you can do here now is appeal the block (but not the ban), and you need to post an unblock request to do so - and that unblock request must include a committment to adhering to your topic ban. If you make any further ban appeals here in advance of the six-month period or continue complaining about the topic ban in any way, I will revoke your ability to edit this talk page too, as this huge time sink must stop. Adhere to the topic ban or go away - those are your only two options. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: I don't remember any administrator voting for my topic ban. Neither do I remember that anyone of them demanded an indefinite block. It's you and several other authors who won't accept different opinions. As far as I noticed, some editors also didn't seem to understand several things (remember kp·m?) I'd bet that approximately all the admins I work with on de-wp would consider any kind of ban applied by a group of users invalid. Why would I appeal if it's useless anyway? I'd bet that 10 out of 10 German administrators would block you indefintely for violating WP:NPA. Honestly, I am surprised that you can reply to what I write without excessively using the word fuck. Did somebody steal your login data? Since you accused me of lacking respect for anybody else, what do you expect? That I listen to what you say? There isn't anybody anywhere who can get through to you. Ah! There is the next accusation. Let me tell you something: Your accusations and insults are disgusting. Maybe you should start adding content to articles instead, you don't seem to spend much time on that. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Maybe you should start looking at my edits? (1), (2), (3), (4), I have committed to adher to the original research and opinions desired by other editors, but obviously that does not matter because that doesn't mean that I would change my mind. I am not appealing the topic ban, I never said I was doing that. Also, I don't want to post an ublock request. Why would I do that? Didn't I express sufficiently what I think? I do not want to add any good content to the English language Misplaced Pages anymore. I have not been treated very well during the past months. You have the power to block users such as Dennis Bratland, why don't you do it? There are enough reasons and considering his edit quantity, the "content" he adds to Misplaced Pages is negligible. Also, consider blocking 1292simon, not everything they add is bad but a lot of their edits contain crap, unfortunately, the amount of crap has become un-negligible. And no, I am not complaining about my block or my ban here. I am talking about other users. I am not banned from doing that. I don't care about the ban and block. They are not fair, but what can I do about them? Nothing. I don't have two options, only one. I can choose between pestilence and plague. Feel free to block me indefinitely, also from editing my own talk page. I don't care. If you consider this conversation time sink, it's your own fault since nobody ever said that you'd have to reply. I don't even mark you in the text, unless you added my talk page to your Watchlist, you won't get informed about my reply. Anyways, I will start working on German articles again. I wasted too much time in the English toxic Misplaced Pages.

Schleichts eich. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are not going to post an unblock request, but instead attack other editors, then you have no legitimate use for this talk page while blocked, and so I have revoked your ability to edit it. Please feel free to contact WP:UTRS in six months if you wish to appeal the topic ban (or sooner if you wish to appeal the block or my revocation of your talk page access). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do we have any consensus on the use of "retired" banners by editors who are instead long-term blocked? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  There's been no consensus that I know of, but I don't see a real problem with an editor who's blocked for six months saying they won't come back after that. Indefinite might be different. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I received your email. The answer to your request was "no", not "keep asking". If you email me again I will revoke your access to send emails. Seraphimblade 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)